Absolute and relative errors

The absolute error in a measured quantity is the uncertainty in the quantity and has the same
units as the quantity itself. For example if you know a length is 0.428 m 0.002 m, the 0.002 m
is an absolute error. The relative error (also called the fractional error) is obtained by dividing the
absolute error in the quantity by the quantity itself. The relative error is usually more significant
than the absolute error. For example a 1 mm error in the diameter of a skate wheel is probably
more serious than a 1 mm error in a truck tire. Note that relative errors are dimensionless. When
reporting relative errors it is usual to multiply the fractional error by 100 and report it as a
percentage.

Systematic errors
Systematic errors arise from a flaw in the measurement scheme which is repeated each time a
measurement is made. If you do the same thing wrong each time you make the measurement,
your measurement will differ systematically (that is, in the same direction each time) from the
correct result. Some sources of systematic error are:

Errors in the calibration of the measuring instruments.

Incorrect measuring technique: For example, one might make an incorrect scale reading
because of parallax error.
Bias of the experimenter. The experimenter might consistently read an instrument
incorrectly, or might let knowledge of the expected value of a result influence the
measurements.

It is clear that systematic errors do not average to zero if you average many measurements. If a
systematic error is discovered, a correction can be made to the data for this error. If you measure
a voltage with a meter that later turns out to have a 0.2 V offset, you can correct the originally
determined voltages by this amount and eliminate the error. Although random errors can be
handled more or less routinely, there is no prescribed way to find systematic errors. One must
simply sit down and think about all of the possible sources of error in a given measurement, and
then do small experiments to see if these sources are active. The goal of a good experiment is to
reduce the systematic errors to a value smaller than the random errors. For example a meter stick
should have been manufactured such that the millimeter markings are positioned much more
accurately than one millimeter.

Random errors
Random errors arise from the fluctuations that are most easily observed by making multiple trials
of a given measurement. For example, if you were to measure the period of a pendulum many
times with a stop watch, you would find that your measurements were not always the same. The
main source of these fluctuations would probably be the difficulty of judging exactly when the
pendulum came to a given point in its motion, and in starting and stopping the stop watch at the
time that you judge. Since you would not get the same value of the period each time that you try
to measure it, your result is obviously uncertain. There are several common sources of such
random uncertainties in the type of experiments that you are likely to perform:

Uncontrollable fluctuations in initial conditions in the measurements. Such fluctuations

are the main reason why, no matter how skilled the player, no individual can toss a
basketball from the free throw line through the hoop each and every time, guaranteed.
Small variations in launch conditions or air motion cause the trajectory to vary and the
ball misses the hoop.
Limitations imposed by the precision of your measuring apparatus, and the uncertainty in
interpolating between the smallest divisions. The precision simply means the smallest
amount that can be measured directly. A typical meter stick is subdivided into millimeters
and its precision is thus one millimeter.
Lack of precise definition of the quantity being measured. The length of a table in the
laboratory is not well defined after it has suffered years of use. You would find different
lengths if you measured at different points on the table. Another possibility is that the
quantity being measured also depends on an uncontrolled variable. (The temperature of
the object for example).
Sometimes the quantity you measure is well defined but is subject to inherent random
fluctuations. Such fluctuations may be of a quantum nature or arise from the fact that the
values of the quantity being measured are determined by the statistical behavior of a large
number of particles. Another example is AC noise causing the needle of a voltmeter to
fluctuate.

No matter what the source of the uncertainty, to be labeled "random" an uncertainty must have
the property that the fluctuations from some "true" value are equally likely to be positive or
negative. This fact gives us a key for understanding what to do about random errors. You could
make a large number of measurements, and average the result. If the uncertainties are really
equally likely to be positive or negative, you would expect that the average of a large number of
measurements would be very near to the correct value of the quantity measured, since positive
and negative fluctuations would tend to cancel each other.

Estimating random errors

There are several ways to make a reasonable estimate of the random error in a particular
measurement. The best way is to make a series of measurements of a given quantity (say, x) and
calculate the mean , and the standard deviation from this data. The mean is defined as

where xi is the result of the ith measurement and N is the number of measurements. The standard
deviation is given by
 If a measurement (which is subject only to random fluctuations) is repeated many times,
approximately 68% of the measured valves will fall in the range .

We become more certain that , is an accurate representation of the true value of the quantity
x the more we repeat the measurement. A useful quantity is therefore the standard deviation of
the mean defined as . The quantity is a good estimate of our uncertainty
in . Notice that the measurement precision increases in proportion to as we increase the
number of measurements. Not only have you made a more accurate determination of the value,
you also have a set of data that will allow you to estimate the uncertainty in your measurement.

The following example will clarify these ideas. Assume you made the following five
measurements of a length:

Length Deviation from the

(mm) mean

22.8 0.0

23.1 0.3

22.7 0.1

22.6 0.2

23.0 0.2

sum of the squared

sum 114.2 0.18
deviations

divide by 5 and (N = number data points =

divide by 5
take the square root 5)

mean 22.8 0.19 standard deviation

divide by

standard deviation of the

0.08
mean

Thus the result is 22.84 .08 mm. (Notice the use of significant figures).

In some cases, it is scarcely worthwhile to repeat a measurement several times. In such situations, you often can
estimate the error by taking account of the least count or smallest division of the measuring device. For example,
when using a meter stick, one can measure to perhaps a half or sometimes even a fifth of a millimeter. So the absolute
error would be estimated to be 0.5 mm or 0.2 mm.

In principle, you should by one means or another estimate the uncertainty in each measurement
that you make. But don't make a big production out of it. The essential idea is this: Is the
measurement good to about 10% or to about 5% or 1%, or even 0.1%? When you have estimated
the error, you will know how many significant figures to use in reporting your result.

Propagation of errors
Once you have some experimental measurements, you usually combine them according to some
formula to arrive at a desired quantity. To find the estimated error (uncertainty) for a calculated
result one must know how to combine the errors in the input quantities. The simplest procedure
would be to add the errors. This would be a conservative assumption, but it overestimates the
uncertainty in the result. Clearly, if the errors in the inputs are random, they will cancel each
other at least some of the time. If the errors in the measured quantities are random and if they are
independent (that is, if one quantity is measured as being, say, larger than it really is, another
quantity is still just as likely to be smaller or larger) then error theory shows that the uncertainty
in a calculated result (the propagated error) can be obtained from a few simple rules, some of
which are listed in Table 1. For example if two or more numbers are to be added (Table 1, #2)
then the absolute error in the result is the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute
errors of the inputs, i.e.

if

then

In this and the following expressions, and are the absolute random errors in x and y and
is the propagated uncertainty in z. The formulas do not apply to systematic errors.

The general formula, for your information, is the following;

It is discussed in detail in many texts on the theory of errors and the analysis of experimental
data. For now, the collection of formulae in table 1 will suffice.

Table 1: Propagated errors in z due to errors in x and y. The errors in a, b and c are assumed to be
negligible in the following formulae.

Case Function Propagated error

1) z = ax b

2) z = x y

3) z = cxy

4) z = c(y/x)

5) z = cxa

6) z = cxayb

7) z = sinx

8) z = cosx

9) z = tanx